# "The Usual Suspects" **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [December 21, 2010, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961 "2010-12-21T15:41:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/121 "2010-12-22T17:20:07Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > Would you have a problem with such posts as the one you made slamming the moderators (#113) also being against the rules? Well, he could save about 66% of the time he spends on the SDMB if he didn’t have to post them. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/122 "2010-12-22T17:23:14Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > I think it’s helpful. It says, “I’m either unable or too much of a pussy to name any specific names, so I’ll make a broad categorization and hope that the majority of posters in this thread see it my way”. If called on it, they’re able to weasel out of any specific confrontation by saying, “well, I didn’t mean he was in that group”. > > It’s even more useful when a mod uses it, as it’s usually followed up by an irrational ruling that makes them look like an asshat. It would be interesting to find an occasion outside this thread where a Mod actually used the phrase. It would be really interesting to find that it has been used by a Mod or several Mods on more than one occasion. ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/123 "2010-12-22T17:24:26Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > Would you have a problem with such posts as the one you made slamming the moderators (#113) also being against the rules? As long as we’re being consistent, I don’t think I would have a problem with that. Consistency is key. And sure, Tom, I’ve only been here since 1999. That’s the only reason I’ve been around for 11 years is to insult everyone. You figured it out. Tell me, is it more pathetic to actually have volunteered to spend time here in a position of faux-power, or to just read and post at leisure? I’m less and less sure with each passing day. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/124 "2010-12-22T17:28:56Z")
> [@Garfield226](#): > > It’s predictable, inane and can be used to be incredibly rude and dismissive. After readying your post 113, and your latest one (# 123), I find it hard to believe that you think being incredibly rude and dismissive is a bad thing, or maybe it’s only a bad thing when other people do it? In any case, I’m happy to here that if the rule is made that it is forbidden to say derogatory things about posters in ATMB, including moderators, you will be a supporter. ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/125 "2010-12-22T17:32:04Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > After readying your post 113, and your latest one (# 123), I find it hard to believe that you think being incredibly rude and dismissive is a bad thing, or maybe it’s only a bad thing when other people do it? > > In any case, I’m happy to here that if the rule is made that it is forbidden to say derogatory things about posters in ATMB, including moderators, you will be a supporter. When did I say it was a bad thing? Being rude and dismissive is unproductive and it may be against the rules sometimes (depending on who’s moderating that day, it seems), but sometimes it might also be the proportionate response. Especially when someone has already taken the first swing at you. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/126 "2010-12-22T17:37:05Z")
Your position is, then, if someone calls you names, the appropriate thing is to call them names back. I think it just makes matters worse (e.g. I get the distinct impression that you didn’t welcome tomndebb’s gibe at you after you insulted him in post 113), poisons the atmosphere of a thread, and makes more work for people who want to have a discussion, and the staff trying to enforce civility. We’ll have to disagree on that one. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/127 "2010-12-22T18:09:15Z")
Would it be threadshitting if I were to say that this thread would probably be a good way to illustrate the concept of “The Airing of the Grievances” when explaining Festivus to someone? 'Cos if it would, then I won’t say that. Mind you, I can’t even bring myself to do more than skim the thread so far. It might merely be inaccurate. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/128 "2010-12-22T18:11:20Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > Nonsense. You might as well say that every use of the word “Democrat” means “knee-jerk liberal whinny bleeding heart spender.” “Democrat” is neutral. “Usual suspects” is negative, except when it is being used ironically, and even then the irony hinges on the fact that the expected connotation is negative. “Democrat” refers to a large group of people, including \*some \*on this board. “Usual suspects” is used to refer \*exclusively \*to a specific group of posters on the board. How would you feel about me talking about “the ass-lickers” every time someone came into an ATMB thread to defend the mods? By your reasoning, since it’s directed against a group of people, as long as I don’t name names, it’s perfectly acceptable. > [@](#): > > Is that explicit enough? Because I’m not going to repeat this again. It’s been explained, and explained, and explained. I get bored really easily, and sometimes find it hard to distinguish between honest questioning and simple trolling. Maybe it would be helpful if you’d actually address any of my actual questions and arguments instead of nitpicking. 1.) What do you think it adds to the discussion? 2.) Do you think it’s a good thing to be able to accuse a group of posters of whining/trolling, without having to identify who those people are or give proof that what they’re doing is whining/trolling? 3.) What do you think about the fact that the very person whose post was the example from my OP has now \*agreed \*that his meaning was what I suspected (a way of attacking the people he suspected of trolling) and not appropriate for ATMB? > [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > I’ve used the phrase “the usual suspects” many times in real life (like at my non-profit group meetings, at my church) and I’ve never met anyone yet that took offense at it. That’s because you were using it ironically, as cited above. When it’s being used here, it’s with a sneer. > [@](#): > > insisting on a new rule just for this one expression is becoming more than silly. Can we please stop bringing up this straw man? I have said repeatedly that I don’t want a new rule; I just want the existing ones enforced. Even when that means requesting polite behavior from people who are defending the board staff. > [@Shodan](#): > > I think there is your problem. It is more than a stretch to get a personal insult out of a statement that there is a group of chronic complainers on the SDMB. You don’t think calling someone a complainer or a troll is a personal insult? You don’t think that when someone is making an accusation, the accused should know who they are? You don’t think that when someone is making an accusation, they should back the accusation up with facts? > [@](#): > > You are going to have to make up your mind. I see no conflict here. Everybody has a reasonably good idea of who falls under the heading of the “usual suspects.” But at the same time, the group is nebulous, so that the people making the accusations can avoid having to provide any real proof. > [@](#): > > I don’t see how you are being prevented from defending yourself. What’s stopping you? 1.) I don’t for sure know that I’m being accused–I can only suspect. 2.) I can’t refute evidence that hasn’t been given. > [@](#): > > That’s because they seem to be, well, unfounded. For all the evidence you’re giving, I might as well claim that you post all day wearing a silly purple hat. What, proof? I don’t have to give proof. That purple hat really it quite silly. I ask again, if you think the “usual suspects” is a valid label: 1.) Please provide a complete list of the people you think it applies to. 2.) Please provide evidence as to why each of those people is a whiner or a troll. > [@](#): > > You are going to have to get used to it - not everything that is important to you is important to the rest of us. And yet, I’m not the only person in this thread who’s saying it’s a problem. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/129 "2010-12-22T18:16:21Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > And yet, I’m not the only person in this thread who’s saying it’s a problem. And I’m not the only one questioning if there is an actual problem to begin with. Stop pointing proudly at the smoke-show us where the fire is. How often, outside of this thread, is the phrase used in ATMB? ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/130 "2010-12-22T18:21:02Z")
I don’t think it’s a problem. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/131 "2010-12-22T18:25:24Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And I’m not the only one questioning if there is an actual problem to begin with. Stop pointing proudly at the smoke-show us where the fire is. How often, outside of this thread, is the phrase used in ATMB? Are you just not reading the posts I make? I already answered this question for you. I guess I’ll answer it again. 1.) The phrase itself has not been used as frequently as my impression had been. I conceded that the problem was more with the general attitude than with the specific, literal phrase. 2.) There \*is \*a problem, because there have been several people other than myself who’ve posted to the thread to agree that the phrase and/or the attitude it conveys is not remotely helpful. 3.) Frequence of occurence should never be an argument for or against enforcing a rule. And the rule exists that you cannot insult people outside of the Pit. ETA: [Here’s the post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13276764&postcount=51) where I previously addressed this question. It was at the top of Page 2 and posted yesterday afternoon. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/132 "2010-12-22T18:27:11Z")
> [@Tahssa](#): > > I don’t think it’s a problem. I think it would be more helpful if you would explain \*why \*you don’t think it’s a problem, since the board isn’t run on votes. 1.) Do you think it doesn’t happen often enough that the mods’ attention should be drawn to reminding people to not engage in this kind of behavior outside of the Pit? 2.) Do you think it’s okay to call people whiners/trolls in general? 3.) Do you think it’s okay to call people whiners/trolls as long as you don’t name names and/or give any evidence to back up the accusations? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/133 "2010-12-22T18:30:31Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Are you just not reading the posts I make? I already answered this question for you. I guess I’ll answer it again. > > 1.) The phrase itself has not been used as frequently as my impression had been. I conceded that the problem was more with the general attitude than with the specific, literal phrase. > > 2.) There \*is \*a problem, because there have been several people other than myself who’ve posted to the thread to agree that the phrase and/or the attitude it conveys is not remotely helpful. 1.) It may not be the problem you thought it was. 2.) Others agree with you that it is a serious problem. Might I suggest that the next time you make that heroic run for the goalpost, you pick up a football instead of a whiffle ball. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/134 "2010-12-22T18:34:20Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > How would you feel about me talking about “the ass-lickers” every time someone came into an ATMB thread to defend the mods? This argument doesn’t really work for me. “If you allow X, what if I use something just a little bit worse than X? How about a little bit worse than that? How about a little bit worse than that?” ass-lickers is clearly more insulting than “usual suspects”. > [@](#): > > I have said repeatedly that I don’t want a new rule; I just want the existing ones enforced. Even when that means requesting polite behavior from people who are defending the board staff. OK then, how would you see the existing rules applied to posts 113 and 123 in this thread? Since those are not forbidden, I don’t see any justification for ruling out the expression “usual suspects”. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/135 "2010-12-22T18:41:53Z")
P.S. The staff clearly enforces civil behaviour from posters that defend them. Latest example here: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13268786#post13268786](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13268786#post13268786) It is those who criticize the staff who usually get more leeway as far as rude behaviour in ATMB goes, in my experience. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/136 "2010-12-22T18:51:33Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Might I suggest that the next time you make that heroic run for the goalpost, you pick up a football instead of a whiffle ball. :rolleyes: So are you actually going to address any of my concerns, or are you going to just have fun nitpicking pointless minutia with **Dex**? Here are some questions for you. 1.) Do you think that frequency of occurence should determine which rules are enforced? 2.) Do you think that it’s constructive to refer to people as the “usual suspects”? If so, how? 3.) Do you agree that when someone says something like “the usual suspects” that they are labeling a group of posters as whiners or trolls? If not, what do you think they mean? And if not, how do you explain that someone who used the phrase says that this is what he meant by it? 4.) If you agree that they’re labeling a group of posters as whiners or trolls, do you think that it’s an insult? If it is, why isn’t that against the rules? If it isn’t, why isn’t it insulting? 5.) Do you think that people making accusations should be required to back those accusations up with proof? > [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > This argument doesn’t really work for me. “If you allow X, what if I use something just a little bit worse than X? How about a little bit worse than that? How about a little bit worse than that?” ass-lickers is clearly more insulting than “usual suspects”. Well, “usual suspects” was already taken. How about if I were to say “here come the usual suspects to lick the mods’ asses” instead of “here come the usual suspects to whine and troll”? > [@](#): > > OK then, how would you see the existing rules applied to posts 113 and 123 in this thread? Since those are not forbidden, I don’t see any justification for ruling out the expression “usual suspects”. Did we actually get a comment one way or the other that those comments were or were not out of line? Because ISTM that saying “the mods lately are being ignorant, patronizing control-freak whiners” \*is \*insulting and not constructive. I agree with **Garfield** ’s point, however, that consistency is what’s important. And that’s why things like “the usual suspects” are a problem: allowing them is \*inconsistent \*with the board rule against personal insults outside of the Pit. I really am baffled that any mod could consider the use of the phrase, or the general attitude, to be acceptable. No one has been able to give me a single example of how it’s constructive or useful. Which I don’t expect them to be able to do, because the phrase has no meaning or intent, other than to insult. If someone wanted to start a genuine dialogue as to whether there’s a group of users who posts in ATMB just to troll, they’d be giving names and examples. The only reason to point to some nebulous “usual suspects” is if you know that you can’t back up your insults with proof. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/137 "2010-12-22T18:53:34Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > P.S. The staff clearly enforces civil behaviour from posters that defend them. Latest example here: > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13268786#post13268786](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13268786#post13268786) What’s your point? I’m not saying they never do it. I’m just saying that this particular subset of insults have been going ignored for a while and it’s really starting to bother me–and clearly I’m not the only one. What’s interesting is that when I did a search yesterday for “usual suspects,” I actually turned up a couple of examples of people saying that they were worried about responding to threads because they were afraid of being labeled as part of that group–i.e., making any complaints at all, however legitimate, means that your concerns will be dismissed. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/138 "2010-12-22T19:00:12Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Well, “usual suspects” was already taken. How about if I were to say “here come the usual suspects to lick the mods’ asses” instead of “here come the usual suspects to whine and troll”? Because “lick someone’s ass” is more offensive than saying “whine and troll”. If you were to say “here come the usual suspects to whine about how the mods are being unfairly treated” or “here come the usual suspects to whine about us criticizing the mods” or “here come the usual whining mod defenders” then it would barely raise an eyebrow. I can tell you, as a person that usually comes down on the side of the staff, that I’ve been told that (and probably worse) in this forum. I just ignored it. What I did **not** do is think “well, if they can get away with that, then I should be able to get away with the same, and maybe something a little bit worse.” > [@](#): > > Because ISTM that saying “the mods lately are being ignorant, patronizing control-freak whiners” _is_ insulting and not constructive. OK! Maybe you can convince Garfield226 to apologize and agree not to use those kinds of expressions any more, like you did with the one person who was using the expression “the usual suspects”. If you spent as much time protesting when a moderator was insulted in ATMB, that would be great, thanks. The thing is, if you want to be fair, and say expressions like “the usual suspects” is so insulting that it contravenes the decorum of ATMB, then to be consistent you would have to prevent other posters from saying anything remotely disrespectful to a moderator in ATMB. How do you think that would go over? We already have people saying that the moderators are protected too much and have the rules biased in their favour. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/139 "2010-12-22T19:00:45Z")
So let’s take this seriously. In the interest of nipping this humongous problem in the bud, are there any _other_ very rarely used phrases that offend you so much that you might want to start a thread in ATMB about them? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/140 "2010-12-22T19:03:01Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > What’s your point? I’m not saying they never do it. I’m just saying that this particular subset of insults have been going ignored for a while and it’s really starting to bother me–and clearly I’m not the only one. What’s interesting is that when I did a search yesterday for “usual suspects,” I actually turned up a couple of examples of people saying that they were worried about responding to threads because they were afraid of being labeled as part of that group–i.e., making any complaints at all, however legitimate, means that your concerns will be dismissed. So you’ve gotten a couple of examples of people being afraid of the phrase. Wow. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961.md?page=8)